Airborne electromagnetic bathymetry

2
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry
Julian Vrbancich
Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
Australia
1. Introduction
Traditional methods for measuring the water depth rely on sonar soundings. However
airborne techniques offer the advantages of increased survey speed and operation over
dangerous waters that may be affected by very strong tides and the presence of shoals and
reefs that limit the operation of surface vessels. The airborne lidar method has been used
very successfully for mapping coastal waters and relies on the difference in the time
between a laser pulse (infra red wavelength) reflected from the sea surface and a separate
laser pulse (blue-green wavelength) reflected from the sea floor. The depth of investigation,
typically 50 to 70 m in ideal conditions, depends strongly on water clarity (turbidity), as well
as other factors (e.g. sea state, surf zone, sea bottom reflection) and weather conditions.
These lidar systems provide dense depth soundings, typically a grid with a laser spot
spacing of 4 to 5 m, and they meet the accuracy standards of the International Hydrographic
Organisation (IHO).
The airborne electromagnetic (AEM) bathymetry method is based on the AEM technique
(Spies et al., 1998; Palacky & West, 1991) developed for geological exploration of electrically
conducting targets, initially applied to mineral exploration. Since then, the AEM technique
has also been applied to environmental studies, e.g. mapping hydrogeological features in
alluvial aquifers (Dickinson et al., 2010); and salinity distribution (Fitterman and Deszcz-
Pan, 1998; Hatch et al., 2010; Kirkegaard et al., 2011). The AEM method uses an airborne
transmitter loop with a known magnetic moment (i.e. a magnetic dipole source) that
generates a primary magnetic field to induce electrical currents in the ground. These currents
establish a secondary magnetic field (the EM response) which is detected by the airborne
receiver loop, shown schematically in Figure 1. The mathematical theory of this EM
induction process is thoroughly reviewed by Ward & Hohman (1987), Wait (1982), Weaver
(1994), West & Macnae (1991) and Grant & West (1965). The EM induction process causes
the electromagnetic fields to diffuse slowly into the conductive medium. Nabighian (1979)
showed that the transient time-domain electromagnetic (TEM) response (caused by a rapid
turn-off of the transmitter current) “observed over a conducting half-space1 or a layered
earth can be represented by a simple current filament of the same shape as the transmitter
loop moving downward and outwards (in the isotropic conductive medium) with a
decreasing velocity and diminishing amplitude, resembling a system of “smoke rings“
1 A ”half-space“ refers to an infinitely deep homogeneous earth (ground) with a given electrical
conductivity.
www.intechopen.com
32 Bathymetry and Its Applications
blown by the transmitter loop“ (Nabighian, 1979). This concept was later extended to a
frequency domain EM response (Reid & Macnae, 1998) where the transmitter loop is
powered by a continuous sinusoidal current at a pre-determined frequency.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the fixed-wing time-domain GEOTEM (Fugro Airborne
Surveys Pty Ltd.) AEM system. The transmitter loop is mounted around the aircraft and the
receiver loop is trailed behind and below the aircraft.
Thus the footprint associated with the EM induction process (to be discussed in section 3.4)
is much larger than the lidar footprint. The physics of the diffusion of the EM fields in the
conductive medium is such that for airborne (or ground) EM systems the horizontal
resolution will always be larger than the horizontal resolution of lidar-based bathymetry
systems because of the relatively small footprint of the spot laser beam. However, a distinct
advantage of the AEM technique is that the EM response depends on the bulk conductivity
of the medium (as well as other parameters), which in the case of seawater, is not affected by
the turbidity or the presence of bubbles. Thus the interpretation of AEM data acquired over
seawater is expected to provide water depths, in relatively shallow coastal waters
irrespective of turbidity levels (within reasonable limits), and in the surf zone.
The simplest model for interpreting AEM data for bathymetry studies assumes a one-
dimensional (1D) layered-earth structure which in its crudest form consists of two upper
layers, a seawater layer overlying an unconsolidated sediment layer, with each layer defined
by its electrical conductivity and thickness; these layers in turn overlie a relatively resistive2
basement (bedrock). This two-layer model allows for a sediment layer (which may become
vanishingly thin over exposed bedrock on the seafloor) and assumes no stratification in the
conductivity of the seawater and sediment layers. Distinct conductive layers of seawater
and/or sediment can be readily included by introducing more layers if warranted. The
2 The electrical conductivity (S/m) is the reciprocal of electrical resistivity (Ωm) and these terms are
interchanged accordingly, depending on whether one is discussing a good conductor or a poor
conductor; e.g., seawater is conductive, bedrock is relatively resistive.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 33
parameters used for inversion of the AEM data are the two thicknesses of the upper two
layers, the three electrical conductivities associated with the two layers and the basement,
and the elevations (and separations) of the transmitter and receiver loops above the sea
surface. The thickness of the upper layer, as determined from the inversion of the AEM data,
is the water depth which is the objective of the AEM bathymetry method. Where some
parameters are measured directly, for example seawater conductivity and altimetry, or
assumed, for example, sediment conductivity and basement resistivity, then these
parameters may be held fixed or tightly constrained in the inversion process.
Given that the sediment layer and its associated conductivity are part of the layered-earth
model, the thickness and conductivity of the sediment layer may also be determined in
shallow waters from the AEM data. Combined with interpreted water depths (i.e. AEM
bathymetry), the AEM method can therefore be used to (i) estimate the bedrock topography by
combining the water depth and sediment thickness (Vrbancich, 2009; Vrbancich & Fullagar,
2007a) and (ii) map the seafloor resistivity (Won & Smits, 1986a). Combined with empirical
relationships such as Archie’s Equation (Archie, 1942) and assumed cementation factors for
unconsolidated marine sediments (Glover, 2009), the derived seafloor resistivities can be used
to estimate important seafloor properties such as density, porosity, sound speed and from
these properties, acoustic reflectivity (Won & Smits, 1986a). The interpretation of AEM data to
determine sediment thickness and sediment conductivity requires a well calibrated AEM
system. The EM response is far more sensitive to the overlying conductive seawater layer than
it is to the less conductive sediment layer and it is therefore more difficult to accurately
determine the depth of the sediment-basement interface than the depth of the seawater-
sediment interface. The same AEM dataset may provide bathymetric accuracy to within 1
metre and yet provide poor agreement with bedrock depths estimated from marine seismic
data. The use of the AEM method for simultaneously mapping water depth and sediment
thickness and conductivity is currently under investigation and for this purpose, it is
important to have independent ground truth data consisting of (i) marine seismic survey data
(matching the AEM survey line locations if possible) to provide an estimate of the depth to
bedrock, and (ii) sediment resistivity data obtained, ideally, from bore hole sediment samples,
or surficial sediment samples (extending to 3-5 m depth) obtained from vibrocore samples. A
marine seismic survey and a resistivity study of vibrocore samples of shallow marine
sediments has been undertaken in Jervis Bay (Vrbancich et al., 2011a) and Broken Bay
(Vrbancich et al., 2011b), located approximately 150 km south and 40 km north of Sydney
Harbour (~ 33.8º S, 151.3º E) respectively, to support the interpretation of AEM survey data to
estimate depth of bedrock and sediment resistivity (Vrbancich, 2010).
1.1 Chapter outline
Section 2 discusses the initial development of AEM for bathymetric studies, and the
associated application of AEM for sub-ice bathymetry and sea-ice thickness measurements.
Section 3 describes helicopter and fixed-wing AEM systems, and some of the transmitter-
current waveforms as well as discussing the AEM footprint that is relevant for
understanding the lateral resolution. Section 4 provides some examples of the results of
AEM bathymetry studies from helicopter3 time-domain and frequency-domain surveys in
3Refer to Vrbancich et al., (2005a,b) and Wolfgram & Vrbancich (2007) for examples of fixed-wing AEM
bathymetry studies.
www.intechopen.com
34 Bathymetry and Its Applications
Australian waters, comparing the interpreted water depths with known values. Section 5
(Conclusion) summarises the important findings and briefly discusses future directions.
2. Development of the AEM bathymetry method – initial studies
Initial studies in the use of AEM for bathymetric mapping took place in the 1980s. Morrison
and Becker (1982) were the first to consider the use of AEM systems for mapping water
depths in a feasibility report commissioned by the US Office of Naval Research (ONR) to
support rapid airborne bathymetric mapping in shallow coastal waters. Morrison and
Becker (1982) investigated both time domain and frequency domain systems existing at the
time and concluded that frequency-domain systems would be limited to a depth of
approximately 20 m and that the INPUT4 fixed-wing time-domain system, with a lower
operating base frequency, was suitable for measurement depths of 50 to 60 m. This
feasibility study was followed by single flight line field trials in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick (Canada) using the INPUT system over waters that were predominantly less
than about 20 m in depth, resolving water depths to about 40 m with approximately 2 m
accuracy as determined by comparison with soundings on coastal charts (Becker et al., 1984;
Becker et al., 1986; Zollinger, 1985; Zollinger et al., 1987).
During this period of study, Won and Smits (1985, 1986b, 1987a), and Son (1985), also
investigated the use of helicopter frequency-domain AEM for bathymetric applications.
Based on field trials conducted in the Cape Cod Bay area (Massachusetts, USA) using a
DIGHEMIII AEM system (Fraser, 1978), Won and Smits (1985, 1986b, 1987a) showed that
excellent agreement in water depths was obtained with acoustic profiles down to depths of
about 13 to 20 m corresponding to one and one and a half skin depths at 385 Hz (the lowest
of the 2 frequencies used in the DIGHEMIII survey). The same dataset was also used to
derive continuous profiles of seawater and seabed conductivity (Won & Smits, 1986a,
1987b). Bergeron and co-workers (1989) examined the same Cape Cod Bay dataset using a
different method to invert the AEM data, to obtain good agreement with measured
altimetry, seawater conductivity and known water depths. Bryan et al. (2003) used field data
obtained over marsh and estuarine waters in Barataria Basin (Louisiana, USA) with a
frequency domain AEM system using a primary waveform digitally constructed from six
harmonic frequencies (Mozley et al., 1991a,b). The results of their inversions showed good
agreement with measured water conductivities and depths, identifying horizontal water
layers with the less saline, less conductive, fresher water layer overlying a more saline, more
conductive water layer. The same instrumentation was used by Mozley et al. (1991a,b) in
field trials at Kings Bay (Georgia, USA) to successfully map seawater depths and
conductivity, and variations in seafloor sediment conductivity, and by Pelletier and
Holladay (1994) to map bathymetry, sediment and water properties in a complex coastal
environment located at Cape Lookout, North Carolina, USA.
2.1 Airborne electromagnetic bathymetry and sea ice thickness measurements
The EM response is sensitive to sub-metre variations in the altitude of the transmitter and
receiver loops above the conductive seawater layer. This sensitivity has implications for
measuring sea ice thickness. If the AEM data is also inverted for altitude, then the thickness
4 INduced PUlse Transient; a trademark of Barringer Research Ltd.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 35
of any sea ice covering the seawater can be determined by subtracting the elevation above
the surface of the relatively resistive sea ice (measured with laser altimetry) from the
altitude above the seawater (Becker & Morrison, 1983; Kovacs & Holladay, 1990; Reid et al.,
2003a; Haas et al., 2009). This method relies on the conductivity contrast between sea ice and
seawater. As sea ice ages, brine is expelled decreasing its conductivity. The seawater
conductivity is typically 2.5 – 2.6 S/m, approximately two orders of magnitude larger than
sea ice conductivity and at the relatively low frequencies used in frequency-domain AEM
systems (typically 50 Hz to 100 kHz), the primary and induced secondary magnetic fields
effectively “see through“ the sea ice. The AEM system can therefore be used to measure sea
ice thickness and also sub-ice bathymetry (Kovacs & Valleau, 1987; Pfaffling & Reid, 2009) in
shallow waters. This same EM induction technique can also be applied using ship-borne
sensors (Reid et al., 2003a; Reid et al., 2003b; Haas et al., 1997). Unlike the AEM bathymetry
method which usually assumes a layered earth model for 1D inversion, determining the
structure of three-dimensional sea ice keels (pressure ridges below the sea surface) with
thicknesses that may reach 6 to 10 m may require the use of 2D and 3D EM modelling and
inversion procedures (Reid et al., 2003a; Liu & Becker, 1990; Liu et al., 1991; Soininen et al.,
1998) in order to minimise underestimating the thickness of the ice keels that results from
smoothing of the EM response over the AEM system footprint (Kovacs et al., 1995; Liu &
Becker, 1990) and interpretation using 1D inversion models.
3. AEM systems: Time-domain and frequency-domain
AEM systems operate in the frequency domain (frequency electromagnetic, FEM) or in the
time domain (transient electromagnetic, TEM)5. Helicopter AEM systems typically operate
in either the frequency domain or time domain, whilst fixed-wing AEM systems typically
operate in the time domain. Fountain (1998) has reviewed the first 50 years of development
of AEM systems from a historical perspective. A receiver loop is used to detect the
secondary magnetic field induced in the ground. The recorded response is a voltage
proportional to the time derivative of a component of the secondary field, typically the
vertical component (dBz/dt). In the following text, the term “bird” refers to the AEM system
towed as a sling load beneath the helicopter in FEM and TEM systems, or to the receiver
unit towed beneath a fixed-wing TEM system. All three types of AEM systems have been
used for bathymetric investigations in Australian coastal waters.
3.1 Frequency domain helicopter AEM
The FEM system consists of several transmitter-receiver coil pairs held in a fixed rigid
geometry. The transmitter-receiver coil pair separation is about 8 m or less, and the coils may
be (i) placed horizontally (horizontal co-planar (HCP) configuration, vertical magnetic
moment associated with the transmitter coil), (ii) or the coil pair may be rotated by 90°, so that
the coils lie in the vertical plane (vertical co-planar (VCP) configuration, horizontal magnetic
moment, orthogonal to the flight direction, associated with the transmitter coil), (iii) or the coil
5The AEM systems GEOTEM, DIGHEM, RESOLVE, HELITEM, and HeliGEOTEM (discussed in the
following sections) are trademarks of Fugro Airborne Surveys Pty Ltd. QUESTEM was operated by
World Geoscience Corporation since 1990 and became obsolete in 2000 after the amalgamation of World
Geoscience Corporation and Geoterrex-DIGHEM Pty Ltd into the newly formed company Fugro
Airborne Surveys Pty Ltd.
www.intechopen.com
36 Bathymetry and Its Applications
axes lie on the same horizontal line (vertical co-axial (VCX) configuration, horizontal magnetic
moment in-line with flight direction, associated with the transmitter coil). Thus with respect to
the flight direction, the HCP, VCP and VCX coil configurations have the transmitter dipole
moment aligned vertically, transversely and longitudinally respectively with regards to the
flight direction. The AEM data consists of the in-phase (R, real response) and quadrature (Q,
imaginary response, relative to the primary field from the transmitter) signals detected by the
receiver coils. The phase (φ) of the response is given by φ = arctan(R/Q).
The first AEM bathymetry survey in Australia took place in 1998 over Sydney Harbour
(New South Wales, Australia) using a DIGHEMV system (Figure 2a), originally developed
by Fraser (1978) for resistivity mapping of metallic mineral deposits in the 1970s using
earlier DIGHEM versions. The DIGHEMV system is an analogue instrument6 consisting of 5
coil pairs (3 HCP and 2 VCX, Table 1). The lowest frequency (f) was tuned to 328 Hz to
Fig. 2. (a): the frequency-domain helicopter DIGHEMV AEM system (~ 8 m length) during
survey over Sydney Harbour (Vrbancich, et al., 2000a,b). The smaller bird between the
helicopter and the DIGHEM bird is a magnetometer bird; (b): The HoistEM time-domain
helicopter AEM bird, located over the Sow and Pigs reef during a survey of Sydney Harbour
(Vrbancich & Fullagar, 2004, 2007b). The transmitter loop (~ 22 m diameter) is attached to
the extremities of the poles and the multi-turn receiver loop is located on the same plane, at
the centre of the system.
6 The current system is the digital RESOLVE system, used in Australia for example to study
salinisation, e.g. Hatch et al., (2010).
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 37
where  (m) = 500/(f)1/2 = 250/(f)1/2 for a typical seawater conductivity () of 4 S/m.
maximise the depth of penetration through seawater, i.e., to increase the skin depth ()
Following this survey, Shoalwater Bay (Queensland, Australia; Vrbancich, 2004) and Sydney
Harbour have been surveyed using an analogue DIGHEM_Res(istivity) instrument with 5
HCP coil pairs operating within the range of 387 Hz to 103 kHz (Table 1).
f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz) f3 (Hz) f4 (Hz) f5 (Hz)
DIGHEM(V) 328 889 5658 VCX 7337 HCP 55300 HCP
HCP VCX
Skin Depth:  (2) 13.8 (27.6) 8.4 (16.8) 3.3 (6.6) 2.9 (5.8) 1.1 (2.2)
Resistivity Bird 387 1537 6259 25800 102700
HCP HCP HCP HCP HCP
Skin Depth:  (2) 12.7 (25.4) 6.4 (12.8) 3.2 (6.4) 1.6 (3.2) 0.8 (1.6)
Resistivity AEM birds. Skin depth  (m) assumes a typical seawater conductivity of 4 S/m.
Table 1. Frequencies and associated skin depths (m) for the DIGHEMV and DIGHEM-
Depth of investigation is equivalent to approximately 2 (m).
One advantage of FEM helicopter AEM systems (compared to fixed-wing TEM systems) is
that the transmitter and receiver coils are contained in a rigid structure so that the coils are
held in a fixed position relative to each other. However pendulum motion of the towed bird
generates a geometric and inductive effect in the measured EM response and contributes to
altimeter error (Davis et al., 2006). If the bird swing period can be determined from survey
data, a filter can be designed to remove bird swing effects, to first order, caused by
pendulum motion (Davis et al., 2009). Predictions of bird swing from GPS receivers
mounted on the bird and the helicopter can be used to predict the bird maneuver (Davis et
al., 2009; Kratzer & Vrbancich, 2007). Calibration errors in FEM helicopter data can be
identified by transforming the data to several different response-parameter domains and
used to minimise the effect of altimeter and bird maneuver errors (Ley-Cooper et al., 2006).
Importantly, this procedure can be applied to historic data, i.e., previous/dated FEM
helicopter AEM data can be re-analysed with this procedure.
3.2 Fixed-wing time-domain AEM
A TEM system does not use a continuous sinusoidal current to power the transmitter loop
(as in FEM systems). Instead, typically, the transmitter current is increased to a maximum
value (during the “on-time“), and then reduced to “zero“ current and measurements are
made during the “off-time“ when the transmitter is not powered7. Two examples of TEM
waveforms are shown schematically in Figure 3. The secondary magnetic fields related to
the decay of the induced currents in the ground are detected whilst there is no primary field.
The process is repeated using the same current pulse but with the opposite polarity and the
same off-time interval (Figure 3), and this response is subtracted from the first response to
7 On-time measurements are also possible with some TEM systems but are not discussed here. The TEM
fixed-wing and helicopter TEM systems used for AEM bathymetry studies in Australia use data
recorded only during the off-time.
www.intechopen.com
38 Bathymetry and Its Applications
improve the signal to noise ratio. The period of the waveform (consisting of the the two on-
time periods (Δt1) of opposite polarity and their corresponding off-time periods, Δt2)
represents the base frequency(1/Δt3), Figure 3; 25 Hz is used in Australia and 30 Hz is used
in America to minimise 50 Hz and 60 Hz power line transmission interference respectively.
The results of the subtraction between the measurements made during the first and second
halves of the waveform are stacked (averaged) over many cycles to reduce noise.
The shape of the recorded waveform (transient decay, Figure 3c) during the off-time is
equivalent to the response at a number of frequencies (ranging high to low) for a
harmonically varying source. Thus different sections of the decay curve contain different
proportions of high and low frequency components. Morrison et al. (1969) computed the
vertical component of the transient field from an airborne horizontal loop above a layered
ground and observed that at early times (shortly after the transmitter current has dropped
to zero), the response is due to both high and low frequency components whilst at later
times approaching the end of the off-time interval, only the low frequency response
Fig. 3. Current and voltage waveforms. (a): Half-sine bipolar wave pulse – transmitter
current (I) and primary magnetic field (HP) waveform (e.g. GEOTEM, QUESTEM). On-time
(Δt1) typically 4 ms, off-time (Δt2), typically 16 ms. For a base frequency of 25 Hz (Δt3 = 40
ms), Δt1 + Δt2 = 20 ms (half period). (b): Voltage (VP) from primary field at the receiver loop,
or at high altitude where there is no response from the ground, i.e., no voltage (VS) from
secondary magnetic fields. (c): Response from ground (VS) during off-time: transient decay
curve (EM response) shown in red, sampled typically 120 to 250 times and binned into
typically 15 to 30 windows (approximately logarithmically spaced) with narrow windows at
early times to capture rapid decay and wider windows at late times to capture slower
decays. (d) Quasi-trapezoidal current waveform (e.g. HoistEM, RepTEM, SeaTEM), 25 Hz
base frequency, on-time (Δt1) typically 5 ms, off-time (Δt2), typically 15 ms, typically 21 to 28
windows. Not to scale.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 39
remains. Morrison et al (1969) also noted that given that the skin depth is inversely
proportional to the square root of the frequency, then the early part of the transient decay is
governed by rapid decay of high frequency energy which has only penetrated down to
relatively shallow depths whilst at later times, the response is dominated by lower
frequency energy which has penetrated to greater depths. Resistive media are associated
with a rapid decay, conductive media are associated with a longer decay. For bathymetric
applications, early time (and higher frequency) AEM data are required for shallow seawater
depths and late time (and low frequency) AEM data are required for deeper seawater. In
principle, the lower the base frequency for TEM systems and the lower the frequency for
FEM systems, then the greater the depth of investigation in seawater.
3.2.1 Variable transmitter-receiver geometry
Fixed-wing TEM systems have the transmitter coil spanning the wingtips and front and rear
extremities of the aircraft, as shown schematically in Figure 1, with the receiver coil
contained in a “bird“ that is released from the rear of the aircraft. The transmitter and
receiver operate at different heights above ground level. The aircraft survey altitude is
typically about 120 m and the bird has an assumed fixed horizontal offset within the
range of 90 to 120 m and an assumed fixed vertical offset within the range of 40 to 60 m,
relative to the centre of the transmitter. Unlike FEM helicopter systems, the relative
geometry between the receiver and transmitter is variable leading to interpretation errors
arising from unrecorded variations of bird attitude, offset and altitude, thereby limiting
the potential of the AEM bathymetry method. Vrbancich & Smith (2005) estimated bird
position errors of several metres at survey altitude using GEOTEM data, based on the
prediction of the vector components of the primary field measured by the receiver at high
altitude, i.e. assuming a free-space approximation (Smith, 2001a) and at survey altitude
over conductive seawater by estimating the distortion of the primary field caused by an
in-phase contribution to the primary field from the seawater response (Smith, 2001b).
These approximate methods for determining bird position only have an accuracy of a few
metres and may therefore be limited. Another method involving the determination of bird
position and receiver coil attitude as parameters obtained in a least-squares sense during
layered-earth inversion of multi—component datasets (Sattel et al., 2004) has been applied
to GEOTEM data to significantly improve the bathymetric accuracy of an AEM
bathymetry survey in Torres Strait, located between Australia and Papua New Guinea
(Wolfgram & Vrbancich, 2007).
3.3 Helicopter time domain AEM
Helicopter TEM systems are similar to the fixed-wing systems except that both the
transmitter and receiver loops are located on a framework suspended as a sling load
beneath the helicopter, as shown in Figure 2b. The waveforms are similar to those of fixed-
wing TEM systems, i.e., an on-time period followed by an off-time period (Figure 3). Sattel
(2009) has reviewed current helicopter TEM systems. The VTEM (Geotech Ltd.; Witherly,
2004) and HeliGEOTEM/HELITEM (Smith et al., 2009) systems for example are typically
used for mineral exploration and the SkyTEM system (Sorensen & Auken, 2004) was
developed for hydrogeophysical and environmental applications. The HoistEM (Boyd, 2004)
and RepTEM systems have been used for several AEM bathymetry surveys in Australian
www.intechopen.com
40 Bathymetry and Its Applications
coastal waters (e.g. Sections 4.2-4.4), together with the SeaTEM system (e.g. Section 4.5)
which was developed alongside the RepTEM system8 specifically for bathymetric
applications. An example of the SeaTEM waveform is shown schematically in Figure 3d.
The HoistEM, RepTEM and SeaTEM systems are central loop systems with the receiver loop
and transmitter loops co-axially aligned and lying within the same plane (i.e., nominally no
vertical separation between the loops).
3.4 AEM footprint
The AEM footprint is a measure of the lateral resolution of an AEM system and was
originally studied for frequency-domain AEM in the context of sea ice measurements by Liu
& Becker (1990). The AEM footprint, in the inductive limit, was defined as the square area
centred beneath the transmitter that contained the induced currents responsible for 90% of
the observed secondary magnetic field detected at the receiver (Liu & Becker, 1990). The
inductive limit refers to the case of a perfect conductor and/or infinite transmitter
frequency, and as such, the induced currents are entirely in-phase with the primary field
(i.e. no quadrature component) and the Liu-Becker footprint therefore corresponds to the
minimum in-phase footprint of a frequency-domain AEM system. In the case of finite
transmitter frequency and earth conductivity, the currents induced in the earth will have a
larger spatial extent than that at the inductive limit (Beamish, 2003) and will contain both in-
phase and quadrature components. Reid & Vrbancich (2004) have compared the inductive-
limit footprints of various AEM configurations including time-domain systems in order to
analyse the suitability of AEM systems for Antarctic sea-ice thickness measurements. Reid et
al. (2006) extended the Liu-Becker footprint calculations (Liu & Becker, 1990; Reid &
Vrbancich, 2004) to the case of finite frequency and earth conductivity for HCP and VCX
configurations over an infinite horizontal thin sheet and for a homogeneous half-space. This
study found that AEM footprint sizes may be several times the Liu-Becker inductive-limit
value, with the quadrature footprint approximately half to two-thirds that of the in-phase
footprint.
The Liu-Becker footprint is determined by both the transmitter-receiver geometry and the
altitude (h). For a dipole-dipole frequency-domain AEM configuration with a transmitter-
receiver separation of 6.3 m, the Liu-Becker footprint is 3.73h and 1.35h for HCP and VCX
coil geometries. For a central loop system (e.g. HoistEM), the footprint is 3.68h, see Table 2
for a comparison of footprint sizes between several AEM systems. Beamish (2003) also
computed the AEM footprint, using a different definition based only on the current
system induced in the earth by the transmitter neglecting the contributions the secondary
magnetic fields induced by currents in the ground make at the receiver. Beamish
determined footprint sizes of between 0.99h and 1.43h for a horizontal magnetic dipole
source (transmitter), and between 1.3h and 2.1h for a vertical magnetic dipole source,
depending on the transmitter frequency and half-space conductivity. Section 4.4 presents
an example of how the EM footprint affects the lateral and vertical resolution using 1D
inversion.
8 The HoistEM system was developed by the Normandy Group and the RepTEM and SeaTEM systems
were developed by Geosolutions Pty.Ltd. The RepTEM system recently replaced the HoistEM system.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 41
System Tx height Rx height Tx-Rx separation Geometry Footprint/Tx-
height
DIGHEM 30 m 30 m 8.0 m HCP 3.72
VCX 1.34
VCP 1.44
SkyTEM 30 m 30 m 0.0 Tx(z)-Rx(z) 3.68
GEOTEM 120 m 70 m 130.0 m Tx(z)-Rx(z) 4.51
Tx(z)-Rx(x) 2.97
Table 2. Liu-Becker inductive-limit footprint sizes (footprint to transmitter height ratios) for
several common AEM systems. Tx: transmitter, Rx: receiver. For TEM systems, the geometry
is specified by the directions of the Tx and Rx dipole axes: Tx(z)-Rx(z) denotes a vertical-axis
Tx and vertical-axis Rx, Tx(z)-Rx(x) denotes a vertical axis Tx and a horizontal-axis (inline)
Rx. For the central loop helicopter TEM configuration (e.g. SkyTEM, HoisTEM), the Tx loop
was a finite horizontal loop (10 m x 10 m) and the Rx was a vertical axis point dipole.
Adapted from Table 1, Reid & Vrbancich (2004).
4. AEM bathymetry studies in Australian coastal waters
In 1998, the Australian Hydrographic Service (formerly known as the Royal Australian
Navy Hydrographic Service) and the Defence Science & Technology Organisation (DSTO)
began investigating the use of AEM as a rapidly-deployable bathymetric mapping technique
in Australian waters,9 complementing the use of lidar. Commercial systems were initially
used from 1998 to 2005 for field trials to appraise the accuracy of the AEM bathymetry
method based on (i) time-domain fixed-wing AEM using the GEOTEM and QUESTEM
systems (Vrbancich et al., 2005a,b; Wolfgram & Vrbancich, 2007), (ii) time-domain helicopter
AEM using the HoistEM system (Vrbancich & Fullagar, 2004, 2007b) and (iii) frequency-
domain helicopter AEM using the DIGHEMV system (Vrbancich et al., 2000a,b) and
DIGHEM_Resistivity system (Vrbancich, 2004). Between 2006 and 2010, field trials were
conducted with a prototype SeaTEM system (Vrbancich, 2009), a floating system equivalent
to the commercial RepTEM system (Vrbancich et al., 2010) and the SeaTEM system
(Vrbancich, 2011; Vrbancich, 2010). The SeaTEM system is essentially a slightly smaller
version of RepTEM, developed for DSTO by Geosolutions Pty Ltd. as a research instrument.
The results of the floating AEM system were significant, providing an upper limit to the
accuracy expected from AEM systems similar to the RepTEM central loop system.
4.1 Sydney Harbour – helicopter frequency-domain AEM (DIGHEM)
A DIGHEMV survey undertaken in 1998 (Vrbancich et al., 2000a) was flown over the width
of the entrance to Sydney Harbour including the Sow and Pigs reef located in the centre of
the channel. The nominal bird height was 30 m. Two interpretation methods were used to
9 The scope for testing the potential use of AEM for bathymetric mapping is significant, especially
within waters affected by turbidity and in the surf zone. Within the Australian Charting Area, the area
of waters less than 70 m in depth that are considered to be well surveyed by any method, is estimated to
be about 599,000 square kilometres. The areas of waters less than 50 m and between 50 to 70 m in depth
that are considered to be poorly surveyed are estimated to be about 531,000 and 867,000 square
kilometres respectively. It is also estimated that approximately 30% of the waters within the 70 m depth
contour are affected by turbidity. (Australian Hydrographic Service, personal communication, 2010.)
www.intechopen.com
42 Bathymetry and Its Applications
estimate the water depths: direct layered-earth (1D) inversion and the conductivity-depth
transform (CDT). The former method uses program AEMIE (Fullagar Geophysics Pty Ltd)
based on a modified version of a 1D inversion program for horizontal loop EM (Fullagar &
Oldenburg, 1984) and the latter method is a rapid approximation method not relying on
inversion, to achieve fast processing and interpretation (Macnae et al., 1991; Wolfgram &
Karlik, 1995; Fullagar, 1989) using program EMFlow (Macnae et al., 1998). The concept of the
conductivity-depth transform is crudely described as follows. For each time in the transient
decay (Figure 3c), the conductivity of a homogeneous half-space is computed such that the
providing the field amplitude at a series of times gives the apparent conductivity10 (  a ) at
predicted magnetic field amplitude matches the observed field at that given time. Thus
(  a  t ), and the depths (d) of the “smoke ring” diffusing through the homogeneous
each time t. This process associates a set of apparent conductivities with the decay times
ground as a function of time is associated with a set of times ( d  t ), thus the apparent
conductivity is associated via time with depth (conductivity-depth transform,  a  d ).
Fig. 4. AEMI (layered-earth inversion) conductivity sections (S/m) with profiles of depth to
bedrock from seismic surveys (red), echo sounding water depths (black) and Geoterrex-
DIGHEM proprietary inversion software (white). (a): this line skirts the coastline and lies
closest to the headlands, marked BH, CH, GH and MH; (b) and (c) progress further away
from the coastline; line spacing is nominally 50 m. Source: Vrbancich et.al., 2000b.
10The apparent conductivity is the conductivity of a homogeneous half-space which will give rise to the
same EM response as that that would be measured over a real earth.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 43
The results of a layered earth inversion for three adjacent flight lines that flank four
sandstone headlands are shown in Figure 4. For this inversion, four layers were assumed in
the starting model overlying a resistive basement. If conductivities greater than about 2.5
S/m are attributed to seawater, the inverted conductivity-depth sections are in good
agreement with known water depths, even in the deeper regions of ~ 30 m. The equivalent
conductivity-depth sections obtained from the conductivity-depth transform using program
EMFlow is shown in Figure 5. (Both Figures 4 and 5 use the same colour scale bar.) The
interpreted seawater layer has a higher average conductivity than the layered earth
inversion, typically about 6 S/m (measured conductivity was 4.5 – 4.6 S/m). Generally
however, there is very good agreement with measured water depth soundings, especially
down to about 20 m. This comparison shows that the conductivity-depth transform method
can provide useful bathymetric data quickly, but the interpreted water depths for this
dataset are not quite as accurate as those obtained from layered-earth inversion.
The features in Figures 4, 5 that are less conductive than seawater and more conductive than
the resistive bottom layer (i.e., coloured orange-yellow-green) are indicative of
unconsolidated marine sediments. The very shallow marine sediments indicating bedrock at
or near the seafloor is clearly identified where the survey line is closest to the headlands
Fig. 5. EMFlow (conductivity-depth transform) conductivity sections (S/m) with profiles of
depth to bedrock from seismic surveys (red), echo sounding water depths (black) and
Geoterrex-DIGHEM proprietary inversion software (white). (a): this line skirts the coastline
and lies closest to the headlands, marked BH, CH, GH and MH; (b) and (c) progress further
away from the coastline; line spacing is nominally 50 m. Source: Vrbancich et.al., 2000b.
www.intechopen.com
44 Bathymetry and Its Applications
marked BH, GH and MH in Figures 4a and 5a. The seismic profiles (shown in red) were
obtained from an earlier study (Emerson & Phipps, 1969). Another marine seismic study
(Harris et al., 2001) confirms that the bedrock reaches the seafloor adjacent to the headland
MH at a depth predicted by the AEM data as shown in Figures 4a, 5a, and that the seismic
line in Figures 4b, 5b adjacent to the headland BH is incorrect and that the actual bedrock
contour in this region is in agreement with that predicted by the AEM data (Figure 5b).
4.2 Sydney Harbour – helicopter time-domain AEM (HoistEM)
Sydney Harbour was resurveyed again in 2002 using the HoistEM time-domain helicopter
AEM system (Figure 2b). The AEM data were improperly calibrated (Vrbancich & Fullagar,
2004) and was corrected using a procedure that reconciles the measured data with available
ground truth at selected points within the survey (Vrbancich & Fullagar, 2007b). An
example of a conductivity section resulting from a line that was flown over the Sow and
Pigs reef is shown in Figure 6. A two-layer-over-basement model was used for the inversion.
The fitted upper layer conductivity agrees well with the measured seawater conductivity
and the seawater-sediment interface accurately follows the known water depth profile
(yellow), mostly to within 1 m or better. The maximum depth of investigation was found to
depth is the diffusion length (  TD ) given by  TD  2t 0 where  is the conductivity
be ~ 55 – 65 m, just offshore of the harbour entrance. The time-domain equivalent of the skin
(S/m) and 0 is the magnetic permeability of free space. Assuming a seawater conductivity
of 4 to 5 S/m,  TD corresponds to a depth of 76 to 68 m respectively at the late time ( t ) of
14.4 ms and this represents an estimate of the maximum depth of investigation for this AEM
system. Vrbancich & Fullagar (2007a) also showed that this dataset, and hence the AEM
technique, has the potential to identify the coarse features of the underlying bedrock
topography, as partly revealed in Figure 6.
Fig. 6. Conductivity-depth sections from 1D inversion using corrected data to account for
imperfect AEM instrument calibration. Accurate bathymetry profiles (obtained from
combined multi-beam sonar and lidar data) are shown: (i) tide corrected (black) referred to a
given datum; (ii) actual water depth at time of survey (yellow), which includes a tide height
of 1.4 m. The Sow and Pigs reef is shown as a pinnacle at ~ 339900 m (E). The colour scale
has units of S/m. Measured seawater conductivity is ~ 4.7 S/m. The green section
represents sediment and the blue sections represent underlying resistive basement
(bedrock). Source: Vrbancich & Fullagar, 2007b.
Figure 7 compares 3D images of the seafloor topography (defined by the water depth); the
lower image is derived from inversion of corrected AEM data and was obtained by
interpolating the water depth profiles defined by the seawater-sediment interface depth, as
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 45
shown Figure 6, to a gridded surface (i.e. by gridding the depth profiles). The upper image
was obtained by gridding the known water depths. For the purpose of this comparison,
individual known bathymetry grids from several high-spatial density sonar surveys and
airborne laser depth soundings were combined into a single grid and sampled at the
HoistEM measurement locations (fiducial point coordinates) to produce bathymetric data at
the relatively low spatial density of the AEM data, e.g., the black and yellow curves in
Figure 6. Gridding the series of yellow curves across all the survey lines yields the upper
image in Figure 7.
4.3 Crookhaven Bight – helicopter time-domain AEM (SeaTEM)
Figure 8 shows a representative example of a profile (line L1185, red) of interpreted water
depths obtained from layered-earth inversion of SeaTEM data, from a survey flown over
Crookhaven Bight (~ 35.0º S, 150.8º E) in November 2009, adjacent to Jervis Bay and located
approximately 150 km south of Sydney. The western section of the profile joins Currarong
Beach and this section and the coastal area adjacent to the beach follows the seafloor gradient
accurately (compare with black and grey profiles obtained from sonar data) to a water depth
of about 25 to 30 m. The peaks at ~ 301400 and 302300 m (E) arise from reef structure,
identifying a cross-section of the “zig-zag” nature of palaeochannels incised into the bedrock,
as shown by the troughs located at 301800 and 301300 m (E) (Vrbancich et al., 2011).
Fig. 7. Three-dimensional images of the seafloor topography based on pre-existing sonar-
lidar data (top) and on inversion of corrected HoistEM data (bottom). Inverted seawater
depths were not smoothed prior to gridding. The images are vertically aligned and are
depicted with the same vertical exaggeration and colour scale. The surface is coloured
according to water depth: red (0-4 m); orange (< 7m); yellow (<10 m); pale green (< 16 m);
aqua (< 23 m) and dark blue (< 32 m). The “white” arrowhead (top) marks the location of
the Sow and Pigs reef. Source: Vrbancich & Fullagar, 2007b.
www.intechopen.com
46 Bathymetry and Its Applications
The AEM survey was flown using 30 lines with 100 m line spacing. A colour–shaded surface
grid obtained by gridding all the 30 profiles is shown in Figure 9 and can be compared
directly with an equivalent grid of the single-beam sonar data, shown in Figure 10. All of the
significant features and most minor features are accurately identified in the AEM
Fig. 8. Seabed level relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD) for survey line L1185; red:
AEM bathymetry; black: Australian Hydrographic Service single-beam sonar data; grey:
single-beam sonar data recorded during marine seismic survey (Vrbancich et al., 2011a). The
location of this profile is shown in Figures 9 and 10.
Fig. 9. Bathymetry of Crookhaven Bight survey area derived from AEM (SeaTEM) data. The
bathymetry profile for line L1185 is shown in Figure 8 (red). The colour scale refers to the
water level (m) relative to Australian Height Datum.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 47
bathymetry map which took approximately 2 hours to survey and about 1 hour to process
the data and run the inversions to produce a georeferenced map. The SeaTEM AEM system
is experimental. In some regions, as shown in Figure 9, the interface depths display an
oscillatory profile in some areas which degrades the accuracy of the derived water depths.
Intensive tests conducted after this survey have shown that these anomalies may be caused
by a high frequency noise source which cannot be removed by the usual data processing
procedures. The source of this noise is currently being investigated.
Fig. 10. Bathymetry of Crookhaven Bight survey area derived from sonar (Australian
Hydrographic Service) data. The bathymetry profile for line L1185 is shown in Figure 8
(black). The colour scale is the same as shown in Figure 9.
4.4 Yatala Shoals – helicopter time-domain AEM (HoisTEM) – AEM footprint features
Yatala Shoals (~ 35.7º S, 138.2º E) is located in Backstairs Passage, South Australia, between
the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. This area is interesting because it contains a
series of ridges, which fan out, increasing in separation and decreasing in height above the
seafloor. This area was surveyed in 2003 using the HoistEM system, to examine the effect of
the EM footprint on the lateral resolution, for resolving peak separation and height.
Figure 11 shows the results of layered-earth inversion for two profiles, separated by about
300 m. The main feature is a ridge rising approximately 18 m from the seafloor at ~ 244700
m (E) (Figure 11a) which gradually deepens and splits into two ridges (244390 and 244670 m
(E), Figure 11b). A series of narrow ridges and troughs flank the eastern side of this main
ridge. The impact of the AEM footprint is evident as a smoothing and underestimation of
peak heights. Referring to the AEM bathymetry profiles (red), the narrow trough (~ 100 m
gap) to the west of the main ridge in Figure 11a between 244400 and 244700 m (E) is
unresolved, yet as this ridge splits into two ridges with a trough wider than 300 m (Figure
www.intechopen.com
48 Bathymetry and Its Applications
11b), the height and width of the western ridge (~ 244390 m (E)) is well resolved, and the
secondary peak at 244670 m (E) is clearly resolved, yet its width is over determined and the
height of the ridge is noticeably underestimated by about 3 m. The ridges that flank the
eastern side of the main ridge are relatively narrow (~ 100 to 150 m) and are smaller than the
central loop EM footprint, thus whilst the peaks are identified, their elevations above the
seafloor are all underestimated by several metres. Another factor contributing to the
apparent smoothing of the peak structure is the effect of assuming a 1D (layered-earth)
model for inversion. 2D/3D modelling and inversion would be more appropriate in this
case, however the routine use of generalised 3D modelling and inversion methods has not
been realised, furthermore, the application of existing methods to an entire AEM survey
dataset is impractical because of the required computer processing time. Cox et al. (2010)
have recently introduced a robust 3D inversion scheme based on a moving AEM footprint
that would enable the effects of the 1D approximation (i.e. assuming a layered-earth) to be
fully investigated.
Fig. 11. Seabed levels, Yatala Shoals, relative to Australian Height Datum for HoistEM lines
(a) L1145, (b) L1175, separated by approximately 300 m; red: AEM bathymetry; black: lidar.
4.5 Palm Beach (Broken Bay) – helicopter time-domain AEM (SeaTEM)
Figures 12a,b show a comparison of known bathymetry (sonar) and bathymetry derived
from AEM data, obtained from a SeaTEM survey undertaken in 2009 over waters adjacent to
Palm Beach, Broken Bay (~ 33.59º S, 151.33º E) located ~ 40 km north of Sydney Harbour.
The depths were obtained using a two-layer-over-basement model using measured seawater
conductivity, altimetry and a sediment conductivity of 1.25 S/m (consistent with sampled
sediments in the region, Vrbancich et al., 2011b) as fixed parameters in the inversion. The
AEM bathymetry map shows very good agreement with the known bathymetry,
highlighting the gradual deepening of waters offshore Palm Beach, and the shoal region
adjacent to Barrenjoey Head. A palaeochannel running approximately east-west was
mapped, based on AEM data, about 60 m below marine sediments in this area, estimated to
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 49
cut across Palm Beach at ~ 628225 m (N). The extent and depth of the palaeochannel in this
area was found to be in very good agreement with a depth-to-bedrock map derived from
marine seismic data (Vrbancich et al., 2011b).
5. Discussion and conclusion
The use of AEM methods, traditionally applied to mineral exploration, can be applied to the
measurement of water depths and seawater and seabed conductivity in shallow coastal
waters that may be turbid and lie within the surf zone, thereby limiting the application of
lidar techniques in these waters. The pioneering work in this area was carried out in Canada
and the USA, with most of this work published in the 1980s and early 1990s11. This paper
presents some of the findings of AEM bathymetry studies in Australian coastal waters
carried out between 1998 and 2010 using helicopter frequency- and time-domain systems.
The AEM footprint (and hence the lateral resolution) is significantly greater than the lidar
footprint, and this limits the AEM method for bathymetric mapping where International
Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) standards are required. However sub-metre vertical
water depth resolution can be obtained using AEM methods in shallow waters (within a 10
to 20 m depth range). Presently, the AEM bathymetry method is a reconnaissance technique
that can be rapidly deployed in remote areas via helicopter, for fast estimation of coastal
water depths, including waters in the surf zone and turbid waters, to depths of about 30 to
40 m, and for identifying areas of exposed reef and for estimating the coarse features of the
underlying bedrock topography.
Fig. 12. Bathymetry maps of an area adjacent to Palm Beach, Broken Bay: (a), sonar; (b)
AEM. Both maps use the same colour scale to show the seabed level relative to the
Australian Height Datum.
11 Many of the technical development issues, applications, recommended areas of research and
strategies for further development, as discussed in a working group report in 1987 (Bergeron et al,
1987), are still relevant.
www.intechopen.com
50 Bathymetry and Its Applications
One of the most important issues is instrument calibration, affecting both environmental
and exploration applications of AEM. Data obtained from (i) measurements of seawater
depth and conductivity, (ii) sediment conductivity from bore hole samples and (iii)
sediment depths estimated from marine seismic data, all acquired from a suitable trial site,
can be combined to provide ground-truth data to establish a suitable geo-electrical model,
for checking instrument calibration errors by comparing derived depths and conductivities
with “known” depths and conductivities. Improved instrument calibration will lead to more
robust estimates of seawater depth, seabed properties, sediment thickness and bedrock
topography as well as improved depth accuracy and deeper depths of investigation.
Apart from improving AEM instrument calibration, reducing noise sources and including
sensors to accurately track bird motion, future work will also involve software
enhancements in program AMITY and associated software (Fullagar Geophysics Pty Ltd) to
enable geologically-constrained 1D time-domain inversion, and 1D extremal inversion
which enables models to be constructed with maximal and minimal characteristics (e.g.
depth and conductivity bounds) which fit the observed data to within acceptable levels.
Where warranted, future studies will also include the use of 3D EM modelling and
inversion methods for interpretation of AEM data.
6. Acknowledgment
I thank Graham Boyd (Geosolutions Pty Ltd), Keith Mathews (Kayar Pty Ltd), Richard
Smith (Technical Images Pty Ltd) and Peter Fullagar (Fullagar Geophysics) for their
contributions to the AEM bathymetry (AEMB) studies in Australian waters. I thank the
Australian Hydrographic Service for supporting AEMB and the Defence Imagery &
Geospatial Organisation (DIGO) for release of aerial imagery under the NextView licence, as
used in Figures 9, 10 & 12.
7. References
Archie, G.E. (1942). The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir
Characteristics. Transactions American Institute for Mining, Metallurgical and Peroleum
Engineers, Vol. 42, pp. 54-62.
Beamish, D. (2003). Airborne EM Footprints. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 51, No. 1 (January
2003), pp. 59-60.
Becker, A. & Morrison, H.F. (1983). Analysis of Airborne Electromagnetic Systems for
Mapping Thickness of Sea Ice. Prepared for NORDA, contract N62306-83-M-1755.
Engineering Geoscience, University of California, Berkeley, November 1983.
Becker, A.; Morrison, H.F. & Zollinger, R. (1984). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry.
SEG Expanded Abstracts, Vol. 3, pp. 88-90.
Becker, A.; Morrison, H.F.; Zollinger, R. & Lazenby, P.G. (1986). Airborne Bathymetry and
Sea-Bottom Profiling with the INPUT Airborne Electromagnetic System. In:
Airborne Resistivity Mapping, Geological Survey of Canada Paper 86-22, G.J. Palacky
(Ed.), pp. 107-109.
Bergeron, C.J., Jr.; Ioup, J.W. & Michel, G.A. (1989). Interpretation of Airborne
Electromagnetic Data Using the Modified Image Method. Geophysics, Vol. 54, No. 8
(August 1989), pp. 1023-1030.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 51
Bergeron, C.J. Jr.; Holladay, J.S.; Kovac, A.; Mozley, E.; Smith, B.D.; Watts, R.D. & Wright,
D.L. (1987). Bathymetry and Related Uses Working Group Report. In: Proceedings of
the US Geological Survey Workshop on Development and Application of Modern Airborne
Electromagnetic Surveys, D. Fitterman (Ed.), October 7-9, 1987, pp. 204-205.
Boyd, G.W. (2004). HoistEM – A New Airborne Electriomagnetic System. Conference
Proceedings: PACRIM 2004, ISBN: 9781920806187, Australian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy (September 2004), Adelaide, pp. 211-218.
Bryan, M.W.; Holladay, K.W.; Bergeron, C.J. Jr.; Ioup, J.W. & Ioup, G.E. (2003). MIM and
Non-Linear Least-Squares Inversions of AEM Data in Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
Geophysics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (July-August 2003), pp. 1126-1131.
Cox, L.H.; Wilson, G.A. & Zdanov, M.S. (2010). 3D Inversion of Airborne Electromagnetic
Data Using a Moving Footprint. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (December),
pp 250-259.
Davis, A.C.; Macnae, J. & Robb, T. (2006). Pendulum Motion in Airborne HEM Systems.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 37, No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 355-362.
Davis, A.; Macnae, J. & Hodges, G. (2009). Predictions of Bird Swing from GPS Coordinates.
Geophysics, Vol. 74, No. 6 (November-December 2009), pp. F119-F126.
Dickinson, J.E.; Pool, D.R.; Groom, R.W. & Davis, L.J. (2010). Inference of Lithologic
Distributions in an Alluvial Aquifer Using Airborne Transient Electromagnetic
Surveys. Geophysics, Vol. 75, No. 4 (July-August 2010), pp. WA149-WA161.
Emerson,D.W. & Phipps, C.V.G. (1969). The Delineation of the Bedrock Configuration of
Part of Port Jackson, New South Wales with a Boomer System. Geophysical
Prospecting, Vol., 17, No. 3 (September 1969), pp. 219-230.
Fitterman, D.V. & Deszcz-Pan, M. (1998). Helicopter EM Mapping of Salt-Water Intrusion in
Everglades National Park, Florida. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 29, Nos 1 & 2, pp.
240-243.
Fountain, D. (1980). Airborne electromagnetic systems – 50 years of development.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 29, Nos 1 & 2, pp. 1-11.
Fraser, D.C. (1978). Resistivity Mapping with an Airborne Multicoil Electromagnetic System.
Geophysics, Vol. 43, No. 1 (February 1978), pp. 144-172.
Fullagar, P.K. & Oldenburg, D.W. (1984). Inversion of Horizontal Loop Electromagnetic
Frequency Soundings. Geophysics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (February 1984), pp. 150-164.
Fullagar, P.K. (1989). Generation of Conductivity-Depth Pseudo-Sections from Coincident
Loop and In-Loop TEM Data. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 20, No., 1 & 2 (June, 1989),
pp. 43-45.
Grant, F.S. & West, G.F. (1965). Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Glover, P. (2009). What is the Cementation Exponent? A New Interpretation. The leading
Edge, Vol. 28, No. 2 (January 2009), pp. 82-85.
Haas, C.; Gerland, S.; Eicken, H. & Miller, H. (1997). Comparison of Sea Ice Thickness
Measurements Under Summer and Winter Conditions in the Arctic Using a Small
Electromagnetic Induction Device. Geophysics., Vol. 62, No. 3 (May-June 1997), pp.
749-757.
www.intechopen.com
52 Bathymetry and Its Applications
Haas, C.; Lobach, J.; Hendricks, S.; Rabenstein, L. & Pfaffling, A. (2009). Helicopter-borne
Meaururements of Sea Ice Thickness Using a Small and Lightweight Digital EM
System. Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol. 67, No. 3 (March 2009), pp. 234-241.
Harris, G.A.; Vrbancich, J.; Keene, J. & Lean, J. (2001). Interpretation of Bedrock Topography
Within the Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour) Region Using Marine Seismic Reflection.
15th Geophysical Conference of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Brisbane, Australia, 5-8 August 2001, Extended Abstracts.
Hatch, M.; Munday, T. & Heinson, G. (2010). A Comparative Study of In-river Geophysical
Techniques to Define Variations in Riverbed Salt Load and Aid Managing River
Salinization. Geophysics, Vol. 75, No. 4 (July-August 2010), pp. WA135-WA147.
Kirkegaard, C.; Sonnenborg, T.O.; Auken, E. & Jorgensen, F. (2011). Salinity Distribution in
Heterogeneous Coastal Aquifers Mapped by Airborne Electromagnetics. Vadoze
Zone Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1 (February 2011), pp. 125-135.
Kovacs, A. & Holladay, J.S. (1990). Sea-Ice Thickness Measurement Using a Small Airborne
Sounding System. Geophysics, Vol. 55, No. 10 (October 1990), pp. 1327-1337.
Kovacs, A. & Valleau, C. (1987). Airborne Electromagnetic Measurement of Sea Ice
Thickness and Sub-Ice Bathymetry. In: Proceedings of the U.S. Geological Survey
Workshop on Developments and Applications of Modern Airborne Electromagnetic
Surveys, D.V. Fitterman, (Ed.), 165-169, October 7-9, 1987.
Kovacs, A.; Holladay, J.S & Bergeron, C.J. Jr. (1995). The Footprint/Altitude Ratio for
Helicopter Electromagnetic Sounding of Sea-Ice Thickness: Comparison of
Theoretical and Field Estimates. Geophysics, Vol. 60, No. 2 (March-April 1995), pp.
374-380.
Kratzer, T. & Vrbancich, J. (2007). Real-Time Kinematic Tracking of Towed AEM Birds.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 38, No. 2 (June 2010), pp. 132-143.
Ley-Cooper, Y.; Macnae, J.; Robb, T. & Vrbancich, J. (2006). Identification of Calibration
Errors in Helicopter Electromagnetic (HEM) Data Through Transform to the
Altitude-Corrected Phase-Amplitude Domain. Geophysics, Vol. 71, No. 2 (March-
April 2006), pp. G27-G34.
Liu, G. & Becker, A. (1990). Two-Dimensional Mapping of Sea Ice Keels with Airborne
Electromagnetics. Geophysics, Vol. 55, No. 2 (February, 1990), pp. 239-248.
Liu,G.; Kovacs, A. & Becker, A. (1991). Inversion of Airborne Electromagnetic SurveyData
for Sea Ice Keel Shape. Geophysics, Vol. 56, No. 12 (December 1991), pp. 1986-1991.
Macnae, J.; Smith, R.; Polzer, B.D.; Lamontagne, Y. & Klinkert, P.S. (1991). Conductivity-
Depth Imaging of Airborne Electromagnetic Step-Response Data. Geophysics, Vol.
56, No. 1 (January 1991), pp. 102-114.
Macnae, J.; King, A.; Stolz, N.; Osmakoff, A. & Blaha, A. (1998). Fast AEM Data Processing
and Inversion. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 29, No. 1 & 2 (June 1998), pp. 163-169.
Morrison, H.F.; Phillips, R.J. & O’Brien, D.P. (1969). Quantitative Interpretation of Transient
Electromagnetic Fields Over a Layered Half Space. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 17,
No. 1, (March 1969), pp. 82-101.
Morrison, H.F. & Becker, A. (1982). Analysis of Airborne Electromagnetic Systems for
Mapping Depth of Seawater. Engineering Geoscience, University of California,
Berkeley, California, Final report, ONR contract N00014-82-M-0073.
Mozley, E.C.; Kooney, T.N.; Byman, D.A & Fraley, D.E. (1991a). Kings Bay Airborne
Electromagnetic Survey. Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric Research
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 53
Laboratory, Marine Geosciences Division, Stennis Space Center, Report ID
019:352:91.
Mozley, E.C.; Kooney, T.N.; Byman, D.A & Fraley, D.E. (1991b). Airborne Electromagnetic
Hydrographic Survey Technology. SEG Expanded Abstracts, Vol. 10, 468-471.
Nabighian, M.N. (1979). Quasi-static Transient Response of a Conducting Half-Space – an
Approximate Representation. Geophysics, Vol. 44, No. 10 (October 1979), pp. 1700-
1705.
Palacky, G.J. & West, G.F. (1991). Airborne Electromagnetic Methods. In Electromagnetic
Methods in Applied Geophysics – Volume 2 Applications Part B, M.N. Nabighian, (Ed.),
811-879, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, ISBN 1-56080-22-4, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Pelletier, R.E. & Holladay, K.W. (1994). Mapping Sediment and Water Properties in a
Shallow Coastal Environment with Airborne Electromagnetic Profile Data: Case
Study – the Cape Lookout, NC Area. Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 28, No.
2 (Summer 1994), pp. 57-67.
Pfaffling, A. & Reid, J.E. (2009). Sea Ice as an Evaluation Target for HEM Modelling and
Inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol. 67, No. 3 (March 2009), pp. 242-249.
Reid, J.E. & Macnae, J.C. (1998). Comments on the Electromagnetic “Smoke Ring“ Concept.
Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 6, (November-December 1998), pp. 1908-1913.
Reid, J.E.; Vrbancich, J. & Worby, A.P. (2003a). A Comparison of Shipborne and Airborne
Electromagnetic Methods for Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness Measurements.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 34, Nos 1 & 2 (June 2003), pp. 46-50.
Reid, J.E.; Worby, A.P.; Vrbancich, J. & Munro, I.S. (2003b). Shipborne Electromagnetic
Measurements of Antarctic Sea-Ice Thickness. Geophysics, Vol. 68, No. 5
(September-October 2003), pp. 1537-1546.
Reid, J.E. & Vrbancich, J. (2004). A Comparison of the Inductive-Limit Footprints of
Airborne Electromagnetic Configurations. Geophysics, Vol. 69, No. 5 (September-
October 2004), pp. 1229-1239.
Reid, J.E.; Pfaffling, A. & Vrbancich, J. (2006). Airborne Electromagnetic Footprints in 1D
Earths. Geophysics, Vol. 71, No. 2 (March-April 2006), pp. G63-G72.
Sattel, D.; Lane, R.; Pears, G. & Vrbancich, J. (2004). Novel Ways to Process and Model
GEOTEM data. 17th Geophysical Conference of the Australian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Sydney, Australia, 15-19 August 2004, Extended Abstracts.
Sattel, D. (2009). An Overview of Helicopter Time-Domain EM Systems. 20th Geophysical
Conference of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Adelaide, Australia,
22-25 February 2009, Extended Abstracts.
Smith, R. (2001a). Tracking the Transmitting-Receiving Offset in Fixed-Wing Transient EM
Systems: Methodology and Applications. Exploration Geophysics, Vol 32, No. 1
(March 2001), pp. 14-19.
Smith, R. (2001b). On Removing the Primary Field from Fixed-Wing Time-Domain Airborne
Electromagnetic Data: Some Consequences for Quantitative Modelling, Estimating
Bird Position and Detecting Perfect Conductors. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 49,
No. 4 (July 2001), pp. 405-416.
Smith, R.S.; Hodges, R. & Lemieux, J. (2009). Case Histories Illustrating the Characteristics of
the HeliGEOTEM System. Exploration Geophysics, Vol 40, No. 3 (September 2009),
pp. 246-256.
www.intechopen.com
54 Bathymetry and Its Applications
Soininen, H.; Jokinen, T.; Oksama, M. & Suppala I. (1998). Sea Ice Thickness Mapping by
Airborne and Ground EM Methods. Exploration Geophysics, Vol 29, Nos 1 & 2
(August 1998), pp. 244-248.
Son, K.H. (1985). Interpretation of Electromagnetic Dipole-Dipole Frequency Sounding Data
Over a Vertically Stratified Earth. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, 149 pp.
Sorensen, K.I. & Auken, E. (2004). SkyTEM – A New High-Resolution Helicopter Transient
Electromagnetic System. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 35, No. 3 (September 2004), pp.
194-202.
Spies, B.; Fitterman, D.; Holladay, S. & Liu, G. (Editors) (1998). Proceedings of the
International Conference on Airborne Electromagnetics (AEM 98). Exploration
Geophysics 1998, Vol. 29, Nos 1 and 2 (August 1998), pp. 1-262.
Vrbancich, J.; Hallett, M. & Hodges, G. (2000a). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry of
Sydney Harbour. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 31, No. 1&2 (June 2000), pp. 179-186.
Vrbancich, J.; Fullagar, P.K. & Macnae, J. (2000b). Bathymetry and Seafloor Mapping via
One Dimensional Inversion and Conductivity Depth Imaging of AEM. Exploration
Geophysics, Vol. 31, No. 4 (December 2000), pp. 603-6.
Vrbancich, J. (2004). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry Methods for Mapping Shallow
Water Sea Depths. International Hydrographic Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (November 2004),
pp. 59-84.
Vrbancich, J. & Smith, R. (2005). Limitations of Two Approximate Methods for Determining
the AEM Bird Position in a Conductive Environment. Exploration Geophysics, Vol.
36, No. 4 (December 2005), pp. 365-373.
Vrbancich, J.; Sattel, D.; Annetts, D.; Macnae, J. & Lane, R. (2005a). A Case Study of AEM
Bathymetry in Geographe Bay and Over Cape Naturaliste, Western Australia, Part
1: 25 Hz QUESTEM. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 36, No. 3 (September 2005), pp.
301-309.
Vrbancich, J.; Macnae, J.; Sattel, D. & Wolfgram, P. (2005b). A Case Study of AEM
Bathymetry in Geographe Bay and Over Cape Naturaliste, Western Australia, Part
2: 25 and 12.5 Hz GEOTEM. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (December 2005),
pp. 381-392.
Vrbancich, J. & Fullagar, P.K. (2004). Towards Seawater Depth Determination Using the
Helicopter HoistEM System. Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 35, No. 4 (December 2004),
pp. 292-296.
Vrbancich, J. & Fullagar, P.K. (2007a). Towards Remote Sensing of Sediment Thickness and
Depth to Bedrock in Shallow Seawater Using Airborne TEM. Exploration Geophysics,
Vol. 38, No. 1 (March 2007), pp. 77-88.
Vrbancich, J. & Fullagar, P.K. (2007b). Improved Seawater Depth Determination Using
Corrected Helicopter Time Domain Electromagnetic Data. Geophysical Prospecting,
Vol. 55, No. 3 (May 2007), pp. 407-420.
Vrbancich, J. (2009). An Investigation of Seawater and Sediment Depth Using a Prototype
Airborne Electromagnetic Instrumentation System – A Case Study in Broken Bay,
Australia. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 57, No. 4 (July 2007), pp. 633-651.
www.intechopen.com
Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry 55
Vrbancich, J.; Whiteley, R.J. & Emerson, D.W. (2011a). Marine Seismic Profiling and Shallow
Marine Sand Resistivity Investigations in Jervis Bay, NSW, Australia. Exploration
Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June 2011), pp. 127-138.
Vrbancich, J.; Whiteley, R.J.; Caffi, P. & Emerson, D.W. (2011b). Marine Seismic Profiling and
Shallow Marine Sand Resistivity Investigations in Broken Bay, NSW, Australia.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 4 (December), 227-238, DOI 10.1071/EG11031.
Vrbancich, J.; Fullagar, P. & Smith, R. (2010). Testing the Limits of AEM Bathymetry with a
Floating TEM System. Geophysics, Vol. 75, No. 4 (July-August 2010), pp. WA163-
WA177.
Vrbancich, J. (2010). Preliminary Investigations Using a Helicopter Time-Domain System for
Bathymetric Measurements and Depth-to-Bedrock Estimation in Shallow Coastal
Waters – A Case Sudy in Broken Bay, Australia, Proceedings OCEANS 2010 IEEE,
ISBN 9781424452217, Sydney, Australia, May 24-27, 2010, 9pp.
Vrbancich, J. (2011). AEM Applied to Bathymetric Investigations in Port Lincoln, South
Australia – Comparison with an Equivalent Floating TEM System. Exploration
Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 3 (September, 2011), pp. 167-175.
Wait, J.R. (1982). Geo-Electromagnetism. Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-730880-6, New York.
Ward, S.H. & Hohman, G.W. (1987). Electromagnetic Theory for Geophysical Applications.
In Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics – Volume 1 Theory, M.N. Nabighian,
(Ed.), 131-311, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, ISBN 0-931830-51-6, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Weaver, J.T. (1994). Mathematical Methods for Geo-Electromagnetic Induction. Research Studies
Press Ltd., ISBN 0 86380 165 X, Taunton, Somerset, England.
West, G.F. & Macnae, J.C. (1991). Physics of the Electromagnetic Induction Exploration
Method. In Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics – Volume 2 Applications
Part A, M.N. Nabighian, (Ed.), 5-45, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, ISBN 1-
56080-22-4, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Witherly, K. (2004). The Geotech VTEM Time Domain Helicopter EM System. SEG Expanded
Abstracts, Vol. 23, Section MIN 3.5 (October 2004), 1221-1224.
Wolfgram, P. & Karlik, G. (1995). Conductivity-Depth Transform of GEOTEM Data.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 26, No. 2 & 3 (September 1995), pp. 179-185.
Wolfgram, P. & Vrbancich, J. (2007). Layered Earth Inversions of AEM Bathymetry Data
Incorporating Aircraft Attitude and Bird Offset – A Case Study of Torres Strait.
Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 38, No. 2 (June 2007), pp. 144-149.
Won, I.J. & Smits, K. (1985). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry: Naval Ocean and
Research Development Activity, NSTL, MS, NORDA Report 94.
Won, I.J. & Smits, K. (1986a). Characterization of Shallow Ocean Sediments Using the
Airborne Electromagnetic Method. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. OE-11,
No. 1 (January 1986), pp. 113-122.
Won, I.J.,& Smits, K. (1986b). Application of the Airborne Electromagnetic Method for
Bathymetric Charting in Shallow Oceans. In: Airborne Resistivity Mapping, Geological
Survey of Canada Paper 86-22, G.J. Palacky (Ed.), pp. 99-106.
Won, I.J. & Smits, K. (1987a). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry. In: Proceedings of the US
Geological Survey Workshop on Development and Application of Modern Airborne
Electromagnetic Surveys, D. Fitterman (Ed.), October 7-9, 1987, pp. 155-164.
www.intechopen.com
56 Bathymetry and Its Applications
Won, I.J. & Smits, K. (1987b). Airborne Electromagnetic Measurements of Electrical
Conductivity of Seawater and Bottom Sediments Over Shallow Ocean. Marine
Geotechnology, Vol. 7, No. 1, (March 1987), pp. 1-14.
Zollinger, R.D. (1985). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry. MSc thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, California, 45 pp.
Zollinger, R.; Morrison, H.F.; Lazenby, P.G. & Becker, A. (1987). Airborne Electromagnetic
Bathymetry. Geophysics, Vol. 52, No. 8 (August 1987), pp. 1127-1137.
www.intechopen.com
Bathymetry and Its Applications
Edited by Dr. Philippe Blondel
ISBN 978-953-307-959-2
Hard cover, 148 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 25, January, 2012
Published in print edition January, 2012
Bathymetry is the only way to explore, measure and manage the large portion of the Earth covered with water.
This book ,presents some of the latest developments in bathymetry, using acoustic, electromagnetic and radar
sensors, and in its applications, from gas seeps, pockmarks and cold-water coral reefs on the seabed to large
water reservoirs and palynology. The book consists of contributions from internationally-known scientists from
India, Australia, Malaysia, Norway, Mexico, USA, Germany, and Brazil, and shows applications around the
world and in a wide variety of settings.
How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:
Julian Vrbancich (2012). Airborne Electromagnetic Bathymetry, Bathymetry and Its Applications, Dr. Philippe
Blondel (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-959-2, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/bathymetry-and-its-applications/airborne-electromagnetic-bathymetry
InTech Europe InTech China
University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com